Tuesday, August 19, 2014

A Reason to Kill

[somewhere in the air,
halfway to Miami]

Much as I prefer RPGs (tabletop) to video games, there is
one area (or potential area) where the video RPG excels and where the tabletop
RPG falls short: exploration. And
that is to say, exploration for the sheer joy of exploration.

In many video games, whether you’re talking Super Mario Brothers
or Mass Effect, one of the things that instill a sense of wonder in the
gameplay is the opening of new areas and seeing the graphics that the designers
have created. Even if there was nothing to DO in the game except “run around,”
you could still have an enjoyable time exploring different areas, seeing the
flora and fauna and marveling at the fantasy world. I know that when I played
the game Fable, I spent a lot of time just wandering around villages and
forests, not necessarily engaging in combat (or the plot) just wandering in a
fantasy land. That was cool way to blow a few hours.

[maybe that is the
appeal of the Sim games. As I’ve never played them, I don’t know]

But just “wandering around” in a tabletop RPG is, well, kind
of boring. No matter how elegant the description provided by the GM, there’s no
real engagement until the players have something with which to engage: a
problem to solve, a challenge to overcome, an opponent to defeat. Old adventure
modules that have many paragraphs of boxed text just bore the players…at least
that’s been my experience over the years. Tell me I’m in a desert and its hot
and ask me what direction I want to go…don’t describe the endless hills of bone
white sand and the shimmering of the air and the blah blah blah. Tell me that
in the light of my torch I can see the corridor goes left or right and ask me
what I want to do, but don’t waste my time describing the type and coloration
of the stone and mold in loving detail.

With a video game, part of the reason why folks play (and
why they keep upgrading their hardware and why each new piece of software is
judged by what’s come before) is to see how far our technology has advanced and
just how lost we can get in the beauty
of gameplay.But a picture is worth a
thousand words, and since the RPG GM has nothing but words (and an occasional
illustration/handout to give the players), it’s going to take many, many
thousands of words to try to duplicate the wonder one would get from the latest
vid. And that’s just f’ing tedious.

Action…that’s what the tabletop RPG thrives on. LARPing may
be different (I haven’t LARPed but from what I gather Camarilla folks aren’t
biting each other), but even those drama-filled story games that are the
antithesis of an Old School dungeon crawl has something happening in them. There is conflict and there is
resolution in all RPGs, but the game begins to fall flat in the exploration for
the sake of exploration.

But okay, so what? Why is this interesting? Well, just look
at how much adventure fiction involves exploring new things…and how much the
enjoyment of the adventure comes from enjoying the marvel of the exploration,
in all but the most fast-paced of pulp action.

I just finished reading Doyle’s The Lost World (it’s a long flight) about a group of explorers that
set out to find an isolated plateau abounding with a mix of prehistoric life:
dinosaurs, ape-men, etc. Yes, there is action that takes place a couple-three
“encounters” with monstrous antagonists. But most of the book is just wandering
around, getting lost, looking at neat stuff, and trying to get un-lost. It’s
still an adventure book…it’s still
interesting and exciting. But you couldn’t run an RPG like that. There’s just
no way to make a game that translates a scientific expedition…even one in a
fantasy realm…into an exciting role-playing experience.

When I consider this, I suddenly see why combat takes
precedence in so many RPGs. Yes, yes…it’s an accepted trope of RPGs that
descends from their wargaming roots, I get that. But, it’s also a very easy and
straightforward method of injecting conflict and action into the imaginary game
world. Things getting boring? Throw an encounter at the players and watch them
engage.

Maybe this is elementary school stuff to others but I see it
as a big stumbling block of the (fantasy RPG) genre. I’ve asked before on this
blog “Is it all supposed to be about combat?” considering the answer to be
“no.” But while the enjoyment of fantasy RPGs may NOT be all about combat, that
doesn’t mean they can go without action, drama, and conflict. Those things are
necessary to engage in gameplay. Otherwise, what are we doing at this table
listening to this GM guy yak at us about his/her wonderful fantasy world?

Can you play Star Trek
without phasers? Maybe…but you probably can’t play it without the
misunderstandings and random conflicts that occur when the landing party
encounters a strange, new cultures. What if Kung
Fu’s Kane just wandered around the Old West without getting into fights or
conflicts due to discrimination? Would that be interesting to anyone? What
would Robotech be like without the
Zentradi?

RPGs need conflict to engage the players. It’s why ElfQuest
is such a damn, hard game to use to emulate the comic books. Yes, you can use
the Chaosium system to pick fights with trolls and humans and MadCoil (good luck
with that!), but trying to play something that looks like Cutter’s “quest?”
It’s real, real tough. You might as well just go back and reread the comics.

That being said (and I really do want to wrap this up and
sleep a bit before landing), I have a feeling that giving precedence to a
combat system is kind of a lazy way of injecting conflict into your RPG design.
And count me among the guilty parties (many of my concepts for games come out
of a spontaneous “neat combat system” idea…but then, felling foes with a mighty
axe is my daydream of choice). Maybe
we just need to kick out the idea of “exploration” (of setting, of character)
as a design priority, and instead focus on what kinds of conflict we want…which
may not be oriented on “killing stuff.” Maybe the KERNAL of fantasy RPG game
design should be taking that conflict and building around it.

People are already doing this, by the way…consciously or
not. Look at Hillfolk and its main
conflict system of seeking emotional concessions. Look at Sorcerer and its goal of resolving the character’s “kicker.”

RPGs without conflict and challenge…even the simple one in
Traveller of making money to pay off your ship and fuel…are boring. Games that
leave the injection of that conflict in the hands of the GM (hello, White
Wolf!) as opposed to putting it front-and-center in the design are just lazy.

Anyway, that’s my thought of the evening (or rather morning,
since we’re well past 1am). Maybe I’ll feel different on the next flight.

4 comments:

I dunno... going into a new town, going down in a dark haunted hole, jumping into some new plane of existence... those things certainly 'feel' like exploration to me during an RPG session. There's often a threat of danger but not always... and a good GM, armed with a handful of well-chosen descriptors, can make them shine.It's true that video games supply great images these days... but they're never going to be much of a rival for the ones in my head.

in a new campaign that started a few weeks ago, i play an elf with very little knowledge of human civilization. most experiences he has are new and exciting. having a good gm helps, but so far it has been great fun "exploding" humans and their lifestyle. the first 3 sessions have been a blast, despite just 2 combats (and little other conflict) in about .20 hours gametime.

i also agree with what professoroats says below. the videogames you describe also have conflict at the heart of them. doing nothing but running around looking at the nice scenery would get boring quickly in a pc-game as well.

My first impressions of D&D was that it was a game of treasure seekers in a mysterious and dangerous fantasy world. The first illustrations that I remember looking at seemed to convey that message. One of them was the cover of the 1e PHB and the other was Trampiers Magic Mouth drawing. Those Dwarves and Halfling never gave me the feeling that they were trained warriors looking for a fight. Instead, I imagined they were ordinary folk lost in a labyrinth only to find themselves going deeper and deeper in search of gold. Even the original cover of Gamma World made me feel that way. Really, treasure hunting was at the heart of the games back then. Conflict was created by any road block to obtaining treasure that the creative GM could come up with- trick, trap or trial. But, as you point out, alot of the conflict involved combat. How else would you interact with that wandering troglodyte or black pudding the first time you encountered them?

Maybe what you're looking for is a game that captures that feeling again.

I'd think video games would also require conflict. One could render an absolutely stunning fantasy world for me to explore, but the novelty's gonna wear off if I can't interact with the environment in ways that feel meaningful

I don't think exploration's a poor focus for tabletop gaming either. What we need to do is ask what sorts of conflicts exploration provides us and how those conflicts should be prioritized based on that theme. Within that context, combat would be fairly low priority, and should be treated with all the attention of a goomba in Mario. Combat is nothing more than an obstacle and deterrent